Talk:Brown College at Monroe Hill/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll get this review started Kingsif (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Style

• At first read, the impression is that this is poorly structured and written.
• Extraneous wikilinks throughout
• Was Produced by Heritage Film Project | Color and Black and White | HD | 50 min. | 16:9 copied direct from IMDb? Using lines like that is not generally accepted prose on Wikipedia.
  • The actual prose part of the awfully-named "Documentaries and Other Media" section is also poor in that it contains two things: a film synopsis and a brief sentence for relating the film to the college - which is just restating that it is Brown College on Monroe Hill at the University of Virginia.
• The (entirely unreferenced) Activities section reads like an advertisement.
• The timeline could easily be in prose.
• Fail stopping before getting into detail

Coverage

• Just from reading the one source attributing the History wall, I can see that there's a lot more on the history and the main building than the article contains. This information is in a source that's been cherrypicked for the article, why is it not included?
• On the other hand, some of the things mentioned thereafter seem trivial. If things like the quirky essay questions and social events were expanded on, their inclusion wouldn't seem so misplaced.
• Fail gaps

Illustration

• The image of the buildings could surely be placed in the infobox?
• Both infoboxes look good
• The Monroe Hill artwork is very big, but I'm also not sure if it's necessary.
• Needs attention

Stability

• Good
• Pass

Verifiability

• The sources seem generally good, if inconsistently formatted.
• However, there are a few dead links
• About half the article is unreferenced.
• The source currently [16] only establishes the titles Grand Poobah and Shama Llama Ding Dong, it does not mention anything else it is supposedly attributing.
• Fail

Neutrality

• Parts are very much like advertising (see above).
• Fail

Copyright

• Check looks fine
• Pass

Overall

• This is very far from meeting the GA criteria. Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)